JUDGMENT : W.P.(C) No. 2024 of 2017 has been filed for quashing the letter dated 07.04.2017 whereby the Respondent No. 1 has cancelled the ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC) dated 27.01.2017 granted to the petitioner. 2. W.P.(C) No. 6084 of 2017 has been filed for cancellation of the licence no. AAI/RC/CML/PB/N-35 dated 13.02.2017 issued by the respondent no. 1 in favour of the respondent no. 2 for providing Push Back Services at Birsa Munda Airport, Ranchi (in short “Ranchi Airport”). Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondent no. 1 to float fresh tender for the said work and to take steps for getting the irregularities being committed at Ranchi Airport regarding ground handling services investigated by the CBI. 3. The factual matrix of the cases as stated in the writ petitions is that the petitioner was awarded the contract by the Airports Authority of India (AAI), Ranchi for providing push back services at Ranchi Airport on 01.12.2014 for a period of two years. Accordingly, the petitioner was also provided Ramp Space of 60.48 Sq. meters and Ramp Office of 15.82 sq. meters by the AAI, Ranchi inside the Ranchi Airport for equipment storage and back office requirement. After expiry of the said period, a new tender was floated and Ex-Armymen’s Welfare & Services Pvt. Ltd. (respondent no. 2 of W.P.(C) no. 6084 of 2017) was awarded the said contract on 13.02.2017. However at the instance of the AAI, Ranchi, the petitioner continued to provide the push back services till 08.03.2017. In the meantime, Air Asia (India) Limited (a scheduled operator) (in short Air Asia) issued a letter of intent to the petitioner on 19.12.2016 for providing comprehensive ground handling services to it at Ranchi Airport. It accordingly applied before the AAI, Ranchi on 19.12.2016 seeking requisite permission. The Air Asia also wrote letter to the AAI, Ranchi who finally granted NOC to the petitioner on 27.01.2017 for providing comprehensive ground handling services to Air Asia at Ranchi Airport subject to payment of royalty on the gross turnover (GTO) basis, giving security deposit and also taking full responsibility for providing such services as well as entering into an agreement with AAI, Ranchi in this regard. Thereafter, the petitioner recruited its staff, purchased the necessary equipment for executing the said work and issued conformity letter to the AAI, Ranchi stating that it would share the GTO (royalty) amount as per NOC dated 27.01.2017. The petitioner also preferred an application before the AAI, Ranchi for providing additional space at Ranchi Airport in order to store and manage the additional equipments and signed the ground handling agreement with Air Asia. The petitioner also requested the AAI, Ranchi to provide additional Ramp space of 125 sq. meters (in addition to space of 60.48 sq. mtrs. already available for push back services and existing ground handling services) to store and manage additional equipments. However on 09.03.2017, an e-mail was sent to the petitioner intimating that the permission for entry of ground support equipments inside the Ranchi Airport was wrongly granted to the petitioner on 09.02.2017 and was directed that such equipments should be removed from the operational area of Ranchi Airport and the compliance report in this regard should be submitted within 3 hours on the same day. The petitioner thereafter wrote letter to the Airport Director, AAI, Ranchi reiterating its earlier request for allotment of additional space. However, the Airport Director AAI, Ranchi sent repeated message to the petitioner directing it to remove the equipments from Ranchi Airport and finally on 11.03.2017, the petitioner was compelled to remove the said equipments and to place it outside the airport. On 22.03.2017, Air Asia made a fresh request to the Airport Director, AAI, Ranchi for providing Ramp space of 200 sq. meters to be used by the petitioner for providing comprehensive ground handling services at Ranchi Airport. Air Asia also applied to the Airport Director AAI, Ranchi on 24.03.2017 for issuance of AEPs for the staff on the rolls of the petitioner for providing comprehensive ground handling services to it at Ranchi Airport annexing the details of 45 personnel. On 28.03.2017, Air Asia also applied for issuance of AVPs in relation to other equipments/ tractors of the petitioner which had reached Ranchi and were to be used by the petitioner for providing comprehensive ground handling services to Air Asia at Ranchi Airport. On 28.03.2017, petitioner also sent a request to the Airport Director, AAI, Ranchi for retaining the Ramp Office space of 15.82 sq. On 28.03.2017, petitioner also sent a request to the Airport Director, AAI, Ranchi for retaining the Ramp Office space of 15.82 sq. meters already available with it since 2015 with respect to push back services as well as existing ground handling services so that it could use the same for providing comprehensive ground handling services to Air Asia at Ranchi Airport, which was scheduled to commence from 15.04.2017. The Airport Director, AAI, Ranchi issued allotment letter on 30.03.2017 for providing 200 sq. meters of Ramp space within the Ranchi Airport to Air Asia to be used by the petitioner for providing comprehensive ground handling services to Air Asia. On 31.03.2017, permission was granted to Air Asia to bring the said ground handling equipments of the petitioner inside the Ranchi Airport and thereafter the petitioner placed various equipments at the Ramp Space allotted to Air Asia inside the Ranchi Airport which are still lying there. As soon as the petitioner got ready to commence the operation for providing comprehensive ground handling services at Ranchi Airport to Air Asia w.e.f. 15.04.2017, the Airport Director, AAI, Ranchi issued letter dated 07.04.2017 whereby the NOC dated 27.01.2017 issued in favour of the petitioner was cancelled on the ground that the contract of the petitioner with AAI for providing push back services at Ranchi Airport had expired. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order letter dated 07.04.2017 cancelling the NOC granted to the petitioner has been issued in violation of the principles of natural justice as no prior show cause notice was issued. It is further submitted that the AAI, Ranchi was well aware of the fact that Air Asia was to commence operation w.e.f. 15.04.2017 and thus the said impugned letter dated 07.04.2017 was issued to create pressure on Air Asia to enter into an agreement with the Ex-Armymen’s Welfare & Services Pvt. Ltd.- the current push back services contractor who is also providing the ground handling services. The only reason assigned for cancellation of NOC granted to petitioner is the expiry of its push back contract w.e.f. 08.03.2017 which has no concern with providing ground handling services. The contract of the petitioner with Air Asia is for ground handling services and not for push back services. The only reason assigned for cancellation of NOC granted to petitioner is the expiry of its push back contract w.e.f. 08.03.2017 which has no concern with providing ground handling services. The contract of the petitioner with Air Asia is for ground handling services and not for push back services. Moreover, the petitioner has a valid security clearance and it is at par with any ground handling agency and is entitled to execute all the works of the schedule operators at all airports across the country. The petitioner was allowed to provide ground handling services to Air Asia at Ranchi Airport and the NOC for the said purpose was duly issued by respondent no. 1 as it was well aware that the petitioner was not only covered by the orders of status quo dated 04.04.2011 and 05.05.2011 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 7764 of 2011 but was also fully eligible in terms of regulation 3(2) of the Airports Authority of India (General Management, Entry of Ground Handling Services) Regulation, 2007 (in short Regulation, 2007). 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the pushback services are small parts of ground handling services and as such if any tender for push back services is awarded to a particular ground handling service provider, the other ground handlers are never restricted from being provided ground handling services other than the push back services for which the tender is awarded. The NOC granted to the petitioner was never tentative or interim in nature and cannot be said to be a conditional one for the simple reason that as per the terms of the NOC, the petitioner had to carry out only ministerial act of furnishing a copy of its contract entered with Air Asia Ltd. to the respondent no. 1 and thereafter had to sign an agreement with it and deposit the security money. The petitioner had already furnished a copy of its contract entered with Air Asia Ltd. and had also submitted an undertaking to pay the royalty as per the applicable rates and was also fully ready to execute the agreement with respondent no. 1. Thus, once the petitioner had shown its readiness and willingness to execute the agreement with the respondent no. 1, the NOC cannot be termed as interim or conditional one. 1. Thus, once the petitioner had shown its readiness and willingness to execute the agreement with the respondent no. 1, the NOC cannot be termed as interim or conditional one. It is also submitted that on the basis of the NOC granted to the petitioner, it had altered its position by making huge investment and therefore the principles of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel fully apply in the facts situation of the present case. As such the respondent no. 1 may be estopped from cancelling such NOC by way of the impugned letter dated 07.04.2017. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-AAI, Ranchi submits that the activity of ground handling is governed by the Regulation 2007 framed in exercise of the power conferred under section 42 of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 (in short to be referred as “the Act, 1994”). Private agency/service providers which are not having any joint venture with the Airports Authority of India or any National Carrier i.e Air India would fall within the category of regulation 3(iii) of the Regulation, 2007 wherein it has been stipulated that such agency can be provided the work of ground handling services only when it has any subsisting contract with AAI pursuant to competitive bidding and selection thereof. The petitioner’s contract for push back services stood expired with effect from 08.03.2017, however it mischievously entered into an agreement with Air Asia, Ranchi by misrepresenting the fact that it has got subsisting comprehensive contract with AAI. It is further submitted that the allotment of 200 sq. meter space was made in favour of the Air Asia and not in favour of the petitioner. The permission for entry of equipments was also not granted to the petitioner, rather the same was granted in favour of Air Asia. Moreover, the NOC dated 27.01.2017 was purely interim and conditional one subject to final agreement with AAI in terms of regulation 3(iii) of the Regulation, 2007. The permission for entry of equipments was also not granted to the petitioner, rather the same was granted in favour of Air Asia. Moreover, the NOC dated 27.01.2017 was purely interim and conditional one subject to final agreement with AAI in terms of regulation 3(iii) of the Regulation, 2007. It is also submitted that Circular No. 4 of 2007 dated 19.02.2007 issued by Bureau of Civil Aviation stipulates that in case AAI/Airport Operator or Aircraft Operator intends to appoint a new ground handling agency, the details of such agency is required to be sent to BCAS along with the profile of such agency at least 3 months in advance so that the background of the said ground handling agency can be checked by the BCAS through Intelligence Bureau and local police. The Air Asia had tried to take ground handling services with Air India but the same could not materialize and as such Air Asia was temporarily allowed to take ground handling services from M/s Ex-Army Men’s Welfare and Services Pvt. Ltd. which was the only other agency available at Ranchi Airport for such services. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 of W.P.(C) no. 6084 of 2017 (M/s. Ex-Armymen’s Welfare and Services Pvt. Ltd.) submits that the Air Asia has entered into a fresh agreement with it on 11.04.2017 for providing both the services i.e. ground handling as well as push back services and therefore the writ petition being W.P.(C) no. 6084 of 2017 filed by the petitioner has become infructuous. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is entitled to provide ground handling services to Air Asia by virtue of an agreement with it for which no objection certificate was also provided by the respondent-AAI, Ranchi however, it arbitrarily cancelled the NOC of the petitioner just to give benefit to the respondent no. 2. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset has submitted that the Regulation, 2007 has not been implemented in true sense by virtue of the orders dated 04.04.2011 and 05.05.2011 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 7764 of 2011. 10. 2. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset has submitted that the Regulation, 2007 has not been implemented in true sense by virtue of the orders dated 04.04.2011 and 05.05.2011 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 7764 of 2011. 10. It appears that the Regulation, 2007 was challenged before the Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No. 8004 of 2010 by Federation of Indian Airlines (FIA) on the ground that in the metro airports, the airlines operators were being prevented from self-handling either through the employees on their payroll or through the ground handling agencies. The said writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 04.03.2011. Aggrieved thereby, the FIA filed SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court being SLP (C) No. 7764 of 2011 wherein vide interim order dated 04.04.2011, it was observed that the airlines represented by FIA in the said SLP would be entitled to renewal of passes of their ground handling staff subject to their entering into an MoU with any ground handling agency without prejudice to the outcome of the said SLP. In the meantime, in order to protect the interest of various Indian private ground handling agencies, who were getting adversely affected by the ground handling circulars/notifications, the Airport Services Providers’ Association, of which the petitioner is also a member, filed I.A No. 02 of 2011 on which the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 31.10.2011 ordered that the same would considered at the time of final hearing. The S.L.P.(C) No. 7764 of 2011 is said to be still pending for adjudication. 11. It would thus emerge that the order of the status quo passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P (C) No. 7764 of 2011 was only with respect to metropolitan airports and so far the non-metropolitan airports are concerned, the provisions of the Regulation, 2007 are still applicable and thus the case of the petitioner is required to be considered in terms with the provisions of Regulation, 2007 which was in force at the time of the impugned action of cancellation of NOC by the respondent no.1. 12. 12. Further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even if it is assumed that the Regulation, 2007 is applicable in the present case, the respondent no.1 arbitrarily applied the case of the petitioner under regulation 3(1) of the Regulation, 2007 whereas at best its case would come under regulation 3(2) wherein self-handling is permissible for the airlines operators. 13. To appreciate the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I have gone through the regulation 3 of the Regulation, 2007 which is quoted as under:- “3. Ground Handling Services at airport:- (1) A carrier may carry out ground handling services at metropolitan airports that is the airports located at Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata, Bangalore and Hyderabad by engaging the services of any of the following namely,- (i) Airports Authority of India or its joint Venture Company (ii) subsidiary companies of the national carrier that is National Aviation Company of India Limited or its joint ventures specialized in ground handling services. Provided that third party handling may be permitted to these subsidiaries or their Joint Ventures on the basis of revenue sharing with the Authority subject to satisfactory observance of performance standards as may be mutually acceptable to the Authority and these companies. (iii) any other ground handling service provider selected through competitive bidding on revenue sharing basis subject to security clearance by the Central Government and observance of performance standards. (2) At all other airports, in addition to the entities specified in sub regulation (1) of regulation 3, self-handling may be permitted to the airlines excluding foreign airlines. (3) All concerned agencies shall ensure that the state of the art equipment are used that best practices are followed. (4) Airlines or entities presently invoked in ground handling which are not governed by these regulations shall not be permitted to undertake self-handling or third party handling with effect from the first day of January, 2009.” 14. Apparently, for ground handling services, the airports are divided into two categories; (i) metropolitan airports and (ii) other airports, which may be called as non-metropolitan airports. The present dispute is with respect to Ranchi Airport which is a non-metro airport. Regulation 3(2) of Regulation, 2007 provides that in addition to the entities specified in sub-regulation (1) of regulation (3) of Regulation, 2007, self-handling may be permitted to the airlines excluding foreign airlines. 15. The present dispute is with respect to Ranchi Airport which is a non-metro airport. Regulation 3(2) of Regulation, 2007 provides that in addition to the entities specified in sub-regulation (1) of regulation (3) of Regulation, 2007, self-handling may be permitted to the airlines excluding foreign airlines. 15. The word “self-handling” has not been defined under Regulation, 2007, however vide letter dated 22.09.2015 issued by the AAI, it has been clarified that regulation 3(2) of the Regulation, 2007 does not permit the domestic airlines to enter into the contract with third party handler for self-handling. It has also been clarified that “right to self-handling” means the right of airlines to conduct ground handling themselves i.e. through their own designated staff/employees, however contracting out the same to a third party would not be permissible. In the latest regulation issued in this regard i.e. the Regulation, 2018, the word “self-handling” has been defined as the ground handling services relating to its own aircraft or helicopter by an airline or helicopter operator or its 100% owned subsidiary through its own regular employees using equipment owned or taken on lease. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No. 18628 of 2015 (OCM) (Federation of India Airlines and Others Vs. Union of India and Others) has held that the AVSEC’s functions specified by the BCAS shall be performed by the bonafide whole time employees of the petitioner- airlines and the other ground handling services can be outsourced by the airlines to the Ground handling Agencies specially permitted in writing by the AAI to undertake ground handling activity through their bonafide whole time employees. I am also of the considered view that the self-handling as mentioned in regulation 3(2) of the Regulation, 2007 is permitted to be done through the whole time employees of the airlines and not by other agencies which are not authorized by the AAI in accordance with the provisions of the Regulation, 2007. The contention of the petitioner that it is entitled to provide ground handling services in view of regulation 3(2) of Regulation, 2007 has thus no leg to stand. 16. Moreover, by virtue of regulation 3(2) of the Regulation, 2007, the right has been conferred only to the airlines operators (which is Air Asia in the present case) to carry out the self-handling works. 16. Moreover, by virtue of regulation 3(2) of the Regulation, 2007, the right has been conferred only to the airlines operators (which is Air Asia in the present case) to carry out the self-handling works. However, Air Asia has not come forward to oppose the action of the respondent-AAI, Ranchi contending that it is willing to get the ground handling services through its whole time permanent employees. So far as the applicability of clause 3(1)(iii) of Regulation 2007 is concerned, the same provides that a carrier may carry out ground handling services by any other ground handling service provider selected through competitive bidding on revenue share basis subject to security clearance and observance of performance standards. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner had been unsuccessful in competitive bidding process for push back services and thus it does not fall under this category also. 17. The other limb of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once NOC was granted to the petitioner, the same cannot be arbitrarily cancelled just to extend benefit to some other entity. On perusal of record, it appears that the petitioner was awarded the contract of push back services in the year 2014 which was to expire on 08.03.2017. During the validity of the said contract, the petitioner entered into an agreement with Air Asia and sought NOC from the respondent-AAI, Ranchi which was also granted on 27.01.2017. In the said NOC, there was a stipulation that the petitioner will make available the proof of agreement entered with Air Asia to the AAI, Ranchi authorities as well as there would be another agreement between the petitioner and the respondent- AAI. In the meantime, the tender for push back services was floated and M/s Ex-Army Men’s Welfare & Security Services Ltd. was awarded the work. Subsequently, on expiry of the contract between the petitioner and respondent-AAI, Ranchi, the NOC granted to the petitioner was cancelled on the ground that there was no contract surviving between them. It would thus transpire from the facts that the NOC was granted to the petitioner during the validity period of his contract with the respondent-AAI, Ranchi however due to subsequent termination of contract, the NOC was cancelled. I thus do not find any infirmity in the impugned letter dated 07.04.2017 whereby the NOC dated 27.01.2017 granted to the petitioner has been cancelled. I thus do not find any infirmity in the impugned letter dated 07.04.2017 whereby the NOC dated 27.01.2017 granted to the petitioner has been cancelled. So far the petitioner’s contention regarding violation of the principles of natural justice is concerned, since the respondent-AAI, Ranchi has acted as per the provisions of Regulation, 2007, there was no need to provide any specific opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in this regard. The question of hearing would have arisen only if the same had changed the circumstances. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors., reported in (2010) 13 SCC 216 , has held that there may be cases where on admitted and undisputed facts, only one conclusion is possible. In such an eventuality, the application of the principles of natural justice would be a futile exercise and an empty formality. Since the petitioner was not eligible for being awarded the work of ground handling services in view of the provisions of Regulation, 2007, no prejudice has caused to the petitioner due to non-providing of opportunity of hearing to it. 18. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the only requirement of providing ground handling services at the Ranchi Airport is the grant of valid security clearance and the petitioner holds the same. It has further been argued that once there is an agreement executed between the petitioner and the airlines, the respondent-AAI, Ranchi has no role to play except to receive the royalty as provided under the law. 19. I find no substance in the said argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. If this argument is accepted then the entire scheme of Regulation, 2007 would get redundant. Moreover, on perusal of the security clearance granted to the petitioner by the BCAS dated 02.07.2013, it appears that it was specifically mentioned therein that “This security clearance does not confer any right on the company to acquire ground handling business at the airports if otherwise not found eligible according to GHA policy of Government of India.” Since the respondent-AAI, Ranchi did not find the petitioner eligible for ground handling services in view of Regulation, 2007, the NOC granted to it was rightly cancelled. 20. 20. The petitioner by filing W.P.(C) No. 6084 of 2017 has prayed for setting aside the award of contract for push back services issued by the respondent no. 1 to the respondent no.2 contending that the respondent no. 2 has been awarded ground handling services in the garb of the contract for push back services and the said action suffers from arbitrariness, unreasonableness and malafide. The learned counsel for the petitioner puts reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Elektron Lighting Systems Private Limited and Another Vs. Shah Investments Financial Developments and Consultants Private Limited and Others reported in (2015) 15 SCC 137 . In the said case, it was observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that initially a tender was given to the appellants of that case for replacement of existing street lights by LED fitting on BOT basis, however subsequently the advertisement right was also awarded to it without inviting any tender. Under such circumstance, it was held that the Municipal Corporation which is a statutory body and instrumentality of the State, should have acted fairly by making it open for all eligible persons to submit their offers. 21. In the factual context of the present case, it is not in dispute that the respondent no.2 of W.P.(C) No. 6084 of 2017 has been awarded contract for push back services by the respondent-AAI, Ranchi Ranchi. The push back service is one of the parts of ground handling services which includes many other services. On perusal of record, it appears that earlier the petitioner was awarded contract for push back services by the respondent-AAI, Ranchi. Subsequently, when the petitioner applied for NOC to provide ground handling services to Air Asia, the NOC was granted to it, however after the expiry of the contract, the NOC was withdrawn. Presently, the respondent no.2 has also been awarded push back service and as such it has been allowed to provide ground handling services to Air Asia as well. The action of the respondent- AAI, Ranchi reflects that it has treated the push back service holder as the service provider under clause 3(1)(iii) of Regulation, 2007 and thus the respondent no. 2 has been allowed to provide ground handling services to the Air Asia. It is also evident that no ground handling agency has been appointed by AAI, Ranchi and the respondent no. 2 has been allowed to provide ground handling services to the Air Asia. It is also evident that no ground handling agency has been appointed by AAI, Ranchi and the respondent no. 2 is the only agency which has been appointed by way of public auction, although for providing push back services. Therefore, the facts and situation of the present case is different from the case of Elektron Lighting Systems Private Limited (supra) as cited by the petitioner and thus the ratio laid down in the said case would not be applicable in the present case. 22. So far the question as to whether the service provider of push back service comes under the provisions of clause 3(1)(iii), of Regulation, 2007, the same is not required to be considered in the facts and circumstance of the present case and the same is left open to be decided in an appropriate case as and when situation so arises. 23. Be that as it may, The Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of India, has notified Civil Aviation (Ground Handling Services) Regulations, 2017 on 15.12.2017 wherein the criteria and procedure for selection of ground handling operators has been laid down in supersession of the previous Regulation, 2007. Based on the Regulation, 2017, the Executive Director (OPS), Airport Authority of India has communicated the instruction vide his letter dated 08.01.2018 to all the Regional Directors and APDs of the AAI and has asked them to follow the said guidelines. 24. It would therefore be relevant to quote regulation 7 of the Regulation, 2017, which reads as under:- “7. (a) The entities which are not permitted in these Regulations and are currently carrying out the ground handling activities at any airport or Civil Enclave shall be allowed exit time of 240 days from the date of publication of these Regulations. (b) The Airport Entry Permits in respect of the above entities referred to in clause (a) shall continue to be issued till 240 days from the date of publication of these regulations. (c) All airport operators shall appoint the requisite number of ground handling agencies within a period of 120 days from the date of publication of these regulations.” 25. (b) The Airport Entry Permits in respect of the above entities referred to in clause (a) shall continue to be issued till 240 days from the date of publication of these regulations. (c) All airport operators shall appoint the requisite number of ground handling agencies within a period of 120 days from the date of publication of these regulations.” 25. The aforesaid clause of Regulation, 2017 specifically provides that the entities which are currently carrying on the ground handling services at any airport or civil enclave shall be allowed exit time of 240 days from the date of publication of the said Regulation. Ministry of Civil Aviation vide order dated 07.05.2018 has directed for implementation of the Regulation, 2017 and further vide letter dated 10.08.2018 issued under the signature of the Under Secretary, Government of India, the AAI and other authorities have been asked for renewal of airport entry passes of ground handling services staff at airports till 31.10.2018 or till the issuance of notification of the Airport Authority of India (Ground Handling Services) Regulation, 2018 whichever is earlier. 26. In the meantime, The Regulation, 2018 was notified on 26.10.2018 in supersession of the Regulation, 2017. Regulation 7 of Regulation 2018 provides as under:- 7. (1) All airport operators shall complete the process of selection of requisite number of ground handling agencies by the 31st October, 2018 unless extended by Government of India. (2) The ground handling agency so appointed shall commence its operation expeditiously and in any case not later than the 30th June, 2019. (3) Airport where duly appointed ground handling agency is already in place and where any agency which is not permitted under these regulation is operating such agencies shall not be allowed to continue after the 31st October, 2018 unless extended by Government of India. (4) Any agency which is not permitted under these regulation and carrying out the ground handling activities on the commencement of these regulations, at an airport or civil enclave other than those referred to in sub-regulation (3), shall be allowed to continue till the 30th June, 2019 or till thirty days from the commencement of operations by the ground handling agencies duly appointed under these regulations, whichever is earlier. (5) The Bureau of Civil Aviation Security shall issue airport entry permits to the existing ground handling agencies till such time their operations are allowed to continue under this regulation. 27. (5) The Bureau of Civil Aviation Security shall issue airport entry permits to the existing ground handling agencies till such time their operations are allowed to continue under this regulation. 27. It has fairly been stated by the respondent-AAI, Ranchi in its counter affidavit that now the tender(s) can be dealt with as per instruction and there is no impediment for inviting fresh tender and the petitioner, on fulfilling the criteria, can also participate. Since, AAI, Ranchi has no ground handling agency duly appointed and it is only the respondent no. 2 who has been engaged for providing push back services, the respondent no. 2 cannot be prohibited from providing ground handling services to Air Asia at this stage. 28. I have also gone through the interim orders passed by the different High Courts as referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In all those cases, either the airlines or the federation of airlines have challenged the decision of the AAI restraining them from getting the self-handling services through their own agents or entities which was allowed by the different High Courts as an interim measure subject to security clearance as well with the consent of the AAI. However, in the present case, the situation is that the airlines (Air Asia) has not come forward to challenge the decision of the respondent-AAI, Ranchi. 29. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstance, I do not find any merit in both the writ petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed. 30. I.A. No. 3299 of 2017 and I.A. No. 5535 of 2018 (in W.P.(C) no. 2024 of 2017) also stand disposed of accordingly.